Madras High Court
K.Meera vs The Secretary To The Government on 4 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1817 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1817 of 2023
K.Meera ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1817 of 2023
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second
respondent, dated 01.09.2023 in Rc.No.153/2023/M6 D.O.No.25/2023
against the petitioner's son, Dinesh @ Dineshkumar, M/A, 42 years, son of
Karthikeyan, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside
the same, and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenue
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
The petitioner, mother of the detenu Dinesh @ Dineshkumar, M/A, 42
years, son of Karthikeyan, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 01.09.2023, slapped
on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3.Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many
grounds assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he
confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the
representation of the petitioner, dated 08.09.2023. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 08.09.2023, the
same has been received by the Government only on 12.09.2023; the file has
been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 13.09.2023, and the Minister
concerned dealt with the file only on 19.09.2023, and the Rejection Letter
was prepared on 19.09.2023, and sent to the detenu on the next day, i.e.,
20.09.2023. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
delay of 3 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the same vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999)
1 SCC 417.
4.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents.
5.As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is
dated 08.09.2023, which was received by the Government on 12.09.2023
and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only
on 19.09.2023, and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 19.09.2023. Thus,
we find there is a considerable delay of 3 days in considering the
representation of the petitioner. This delay of 3 days in considering the
detenu's representation remains unexplained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously
considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable
delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be
a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued
detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find
that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 3 days.
Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the
detenu.
7.In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case
(cited supra), it has been held as follows:
"It is a constitutional obligation of the
Government to consider the representation forwarded by
the detenu without any delay. Though no period is
prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the
decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as
soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the
message that the representation should be considered
and disposed of at the earliest."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited
Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be
considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the
authorities concerned. But, here the inordinate delay of 3 days has not been
properly explained at all.
8.Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of
Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on
procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the
Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be
considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any
avoidable delay.
9.In the light of the above fact and law, we have no hesitation in
quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the
Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, and the
detention order in Rc.No.153/2023/M6 D.O.No.25/2023, dated 01.09.2023,
passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu Dinesh @
Dineshkumar, M/A, 42 years, son of Karthikeyan, is directed to be set at
liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any
other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
04.01.2024
Anu/pvs
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu/pvs
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
